1 / 4 2025:CGHC:52386-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 729 of 2025 1. Kashyap Krishna Gautam S/o Late Shri Mahatma Singh Aged About 60 Years Posted As Under Secretary, Chief Minister Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2. Rajeseh Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Sudhakar Rao Aged About 53 Years Post Assistant Grade-1, Tribal Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, General Administrative Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa, Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through- Secretary, General Administrative Department Mantralaya Vallab Bhawan, Bhopal District- Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 3.Union Of India Through- Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pension, Department Of Personnel And Training 3rd Floor, Loknath Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, ... Respondent(s) For appellant : None For Respondents : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.30 10:22:47 +0530 2 / 4 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, (Chief Justice) 28.10.2025 1. None appears on behalf of the appellant on repeated calls. 2. The present writ appeal has been preferred under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (appeal to the Division Bench) Act 2006 against the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kashyap Krishan Gautam & Others Vs. State of C.G. and Others in WPS No. 6913 of 2021. 3. The present writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “1. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order of Double bench-1, dated 04.09.2025 in WPS/6913/2021. 2. Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to pass order to restore the writ petition WPS/6913/2021 and provide the relief mentioned their in. 3. Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of petition, may also please be granted to the appellant. An Affidavit in support is filed herewith.” 4. Perusal of the impugned order under challenge shows that the 3 / 4 petition was initially filled before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court questioning the constitutional validity of notification dated 14.06.2021, whereby the Chhattisgarh Secretariat Service Recruitment Rules, 2012 (for short, the Rules of 2012') have been amended inserting Bachelor's Degree as qualification for appointment by promotion to the posts of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Section Officer in serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule-IV, in addition to the requisite experience. All the posts with respect to which the challenge has been made, are 100% promotional posts. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties on 04.09.2025 dismissed the writ petition, the operative part of the order is reproduced herein under:- “ XXX XXX 34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned amendment in Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2012 prescribing educational qualification of Bachelor's Degree for the promotional posts of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Section Officer is constitutionally valid and does not suffer any vice of arbitrariness, illegality discriminatory. Challenge made to the said amendment is hereby rejected. Consequently, all the writ petitions 4 / 4 deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). “ 6. Further perusal of the office note shows that the impugned order sought to be assailed has been passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the present appeal challenging the said order is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2007. Had it been if any of the parties aggrieved by the said order, they ought to approach the higher forum/Court. 7. Furthermore, the learned counsel who has drafted the present appeal has chosen not to appear before the Court despite repeated calls, which indicates a deliberate avoidance to answer the query regarding maintainability of the present appeal against the impugned order dated 04.09.2025. The said counsel is hereby cautioned to maintain due care and responsibility in advising the litigant, failing which an adverse inference may be drawn against him. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti